TULSI RAM Vs. KRISHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Plaintiffs' second appeal. The material facts are that the Plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the land specifically detailed in para 2 of the impugned judgment. The Defendants inter alia claimed to be the joint owners in possession of the suit land. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appeal of the Plaintiffs was dismissed by the lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal by the Plaintiff alongwith which CMP(M) No. 507/ 99 under Order 22, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure to bring on record the legal representatives of Defendant Paras Ram who is stated to have died on 22.10.1989 and CMP (M) No. 508/99 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the CMP (M) No. 507/99 have also been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material on record.

(3.) There is no dispute that Defendant Paras Ram died on 22.10.1989, that is, during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court. It is also not disputed that neither of the parties informed the lower Appellate Court about the death of Defendant Paras Ram nor steps were taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the said deceased with the result that the lower appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree on merits as if Defendant Paras Ram was alive.